Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 84146 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2002 23:42:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 84133 invoked from network); 3 May 2002 23:42:07 -0000 Message-ID: <3CD32056.5020700@cnet.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 16:42:14 -0700 From: Brian Pane User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011011 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Concept: have MPM identify itself in Server header References: <3CD3187B.9070302@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ian Holsman wrote: > > > Cliff Woolley wrote: > >> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> >> >>> Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl, >>> etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this >>> header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of a >>> difference between announcing PHP there and an MPM. >> >> >> >> Possibly. I guess I draw the line by saying that it's okay to announce >> version numbers, but configuration parameters are out. I don't have so >> much of a problem with third-party modules announcing themselves. >> mod_ssl and OpenSSL I find questionable at this point, however. > > > On this note > what do people think in making the 'default' install only show the > major version (ie.. Apache 2.0) instead of showing everything? +1 --Brian